Man, call me a commie or whatever but could someone explain why we are in Iraq?

I mean, when we decided we wanted to start our own country we kicked the crap out of one of the mightiest armies in the world (while using about 9 militiamen armed with 6 muskets led by the honorable George Washington... like Jay Mohr says, it's not our fault the English wore bright red coats... in the snow) then after the British were handed their arses we started formulating our own government. The French didn't come over and raid the constitutional convention so they could start telling us how to run things, they stayed back, they were kind of our backup to make sure no one messed with us, but they let us go about their business.

I mean, I love democracy, it's done a lot for America and in just a few hundred years it has made us an industrialized and powerful nation... but I don't beleieve there is a universal form of government for everyone. I mean, some countries lasted for FAR more than our 200 some odd years with kings and queens (not all of these figures are ruthless leaders, especially a king who folows Islam, there is not much in their religion that would allow them to abuse power) Why are we in Iraq, where we clearly are not wanted (either by our allies or by the indigenous people's of Iraq) to perform a task that is clearly not needed.

I mean, are we about to risk the security and stability of another country so we can put a leader in Iraq that will owe us a favor for putting him in a position of power? All this so he can give us a couple cents off on gasoline? I... I guess I just don't get it...

Anyway, they don't do college deferments anymore so who knows, I may get drafted, I may go over to Iraq to fight a war that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

This war has alot of people scratching their heads, and for valid reasons. I guess one silver lining that I look to (not that I expect everyone to see it my way) is that it also ends up being a war against tyranny. When it's a very small group of people with absolute power over a VERY large group of people, you can see situations like that in Iraq. Young men be-headed because they didn't perform well enough on the soccer team. Women raped because the perps didn't have to answer to anyone. False imprisonment, it goes on and on.

It may not have been the "official" reason, but if that activity is curbed, I take some degree of comfort in that. I gotta say that if I were being tortured in prison simply because I didn't loudly trumpet the virtues of my "great leader", I'd be hoping for someone to stick their nose in. Even it's where some others (who don't have a personal stake or need to worry) tell you that nose doesn't belong.

My car doesn't go fast, but if you're important, people will wait for you.

I see a part of this war that most do not. One of my duties here at Dover is to process the remains of those killed. I see things that I'm not allowed to or want to talk about. I have very mixed emotions about what were doing. I don't want to see these young men and women deaths be in vain.

To answer your question as to why we're there...the very reason your able to make the statemen you just did (not that I agree or disagree) is the main reason we're there. We had some protesters outside the base a few weeks ago, protesting against the war. Their right to protest is something the Iraqi people didn't have, sometimes I think we take our freedoms for granted in this country.

I respect everyone opinions on this topic...all that I asked is that we ALL support our men and women in uniform who help protect our right to express them

"Sean Taylor is hands down the best athlete I've ever coached it's not even close" Gregg Williams 2005 Mini-Camp

We are there and need to get our objectives resolved as soon as possible, and yes I support our troops. We have no choice now but to create a stable country or we will pay for it bigtime in the future.

Funny how civil rights violations, tyranny, and genoside haven't caused us to invade countries in the past. What makes this different? A threat of WMD that appears to have never existed, oil fields, taking care of what Bush senior should have finished in the the first place?

No matter how you look at it, it is a mess and unfortunetly some great men and women are paying the ultimate price.

My heart is with you DE, not a situation anyone wants to be in.

"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son." - Dean Wormer

The reasons we went to Iraq is quite simple. One, their military was not very powerful so overall they were something of a pushover. Two, they were the easiest target to go after politically and Three, if a nation as powerful as the US has staging areas in Iraq, they have virtual control over every country in the region.

Syria and Iran (and to some extent Saudi factions) are doing everything in their power to incite problems in Iraq. Ask yourself why.

Iran is facing internal pressure against the governing theocracy. Dissidents in that country would definitely feel emboldened by the US military against their border ready to assist them.

Syria's dictatorship also feels the pressure. They successfully rule that country by giving various terror orginizations free reign.

Even the House of Saud would feel the pressure of a democracy in the region.

Many arab states have demonized Israel and kept their own populace from aspiring to reach Israel's level of prosperity. "Westernization" has become the latest "evil du jour" in most areas of the Middle East because it brings with it a distinct loss of power to the ruling elite.

Well, one thing that is consistently looked over in these discussions (because it makes us look bad) is that we relied on bad intellegence in order to justify our invasion. Congress did authorize the President's use of force (even if you take back Kerry's vote that he's since retracted on); and furthermore Iraq was still in violation of several sanctions. Not only did our intellegence think that he had WMDs, so did Britain, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, etc. I think something needs to be said for the fact that we haven't found any WMD's, and it is highly unlikely that they are in Iraq at all. However, based on the evidence at the time, Iraq seemed to have those weapons and this caused us to invade (in order to help protect ourselves from a future 9-11). We didn't invade primarily to give Iraq the freedoms that we enjoy in our society. It looks to me like the latter side effect is going to be emphasized in Bush's campaign.

That being said, I did and still do support our invasion, mainly because of what the situation was at the time. Not a pleasant happening, but it was (in my opinion) necessary. . .and Bush (again, in my opinion) isn't to blame for the bad intellegence of the entire world (including years' worth of our own).

Does anyone think the invasion was worth it, assuming temporarily that all it will accomplish is a democracy in Iraq? (not a question that's looking for a fight, I'd be interested to know).

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need. You draft the best available football player on the board. ... Because, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games." - Scot McCloughan

we're there because of all the weapons of mass destruction iraq had, obviously. sheesh! i mean, that stuff is all over the place! /end sarcasm.

i personally think gearge jr. was just trying to please his daddy. 'look dad! i got saddam for ya!'. the more i hear, the more i'm convinced he was preoccupied with iraq since the day he got into office.

fanfromannapolis, i think one could blame george-not for the faulty intelligence, but for not heeding the world's and his own advisors' recommendation to wait and do more poking around. instead, he rushed into the war, which at the time won him approval from most of the country, but now it looks like it could be his politcal downfall. the sadest result of this war is that it has probably created more terrorists than it has removed.

dehog, i do not envy you, man. but i most certainly respect that you have the cahones to do your job day after day, and not go crazy. i moved to maine so i wouldn't have to hear about how many soldiers were killed yesterday in iraq and around the world. and you deal with it on a daily basis. i have a buddy in the seals who's heading over there now (again). i hope you never meet him.

I'm a jack of all trades, the master of three
Rockin' the tables, rockin' the mikes, rockin' the young lay-dees.

If your neighbor is beating the hell out of his wife, and kids...and you see/hear/know about it.... are you just gonna let it continue??? or are you gonna do something about it???

This is the same thing... on a wider scale.... whether you wanna say it's for oil... or bush's daddy.... the one true fact is that this guy approved the murder, raping, and torturing of his people.... and he needed to be stopped.... That's what makes this country and the allies that helped us great countries..... where not willing to stand by and let others suffer.....

now do you understand???

**SPECIAL EDITION**

CurveBall - "It might be YOUR biggest game of the year but it really doesn't seem to be as big a deal for Dallas fans anymore."

btp, i never said that saddam wasn't evil. i think he is. and i am well aware of the atrocities that he has imposed on his own people (the discovery channel rocks). i am uncertain, however, how this became our problem. i understand the beaten wife comparison, but at what point do i stop interfering? should i go door to door and make sure that all the wives on my block aren't being beaten? should i go to all the homes in my town? in the state? i agree that we should have maintain good relations with our allies, and if one asks for our help (as kuwait did in '91) we should not hesitate to help. that was not the case this time. we picked a country and invaded. whether or not saddam is evil is almost a mute point. what if china thinks that we're evil? should they invade us? and use the same reasoning that we used to justify the invasion of iraq? you may say, 'but we're not evil, we're just trying to help people'. well, others in the world may not see it that way. they may see america as the evil dictator, forcing democracy where it may not be wanted.

also, if bush wanted to start a war with iraq because of the brutal treatment saddam gave to his citizens, he should have said that. instead, he told us that they have wmd, and that they have ties to bin laden. i would have been less appalled at the whole thing if he just told the truth about why he wanted to go in there.

I'm a jack of all trades, the master of three
Rockin' the tables, rockin' the mikes, rockin' the young lay-dees.

joebagadonuts wrote:btp, i never said that saddam wasn't evil. i think he is. and i am well aware of the atrocities that he has imposed on his own people (the discovery channel rocks). i am uncertain, however, how this became our problem. i understand the beaten wife comparison, but at what point do i stop interfering? should i go door to door and make sure that all the wives on my block aren't being beaten? should i go to all the homes in my town? in the state?

I'm not saying that you should go knocking from door to door... prying.... but you could find out other than prying....and if you know about it, then you would be a coward not to do something about it especially if you feel it's wrong....

joebagadonuts wrote: i agree that we should have maintain good relations with our allies, and if one asks for our help (as kuwait did in '91) we should not hesitate to help. that was not the case this time. we picked a country and invaded.

No my friend we didn't just pick a country.... I mean at one time we were allies with Iraq.... then it seems they weren't cooperating with the United Nations w/ inspectors and such.... and from other things we found out about Saddam, and his injustices to his people.... it was time that someone stepped up.... the reason Bush decided to go in is debatable... but in the end we all know.... we removed an evil person from power....

joebagadonuts wrote: whether or not saddam is evil is almost a mute point. what if china thinks that we're evil? should they invade us? and use the same reasoning that we used to justify the invasion of iraq? you may say, 'but we're not evil, we're just trying to help people'. well, others in the world may not see it that way. they may see america as the evil dictator, forcing democracy where it may not be wanted.

as far as i know we have never forced a country into a democracy.... we've suggested it yes, but there not in Iraq right now trying to establish a goverment and saying this has to be a Democracy....

And you hit the Nail on the Head, America is a super power and anybody who does not agree with us, look to us as the enemy.... this is the reason we need to be more aware and more involved with other countries.... Were the ones that will get hurt if we do not do so.... If we don't help police the world.... will be the first to get hurt....

joebagadonuts wrote:also, if bush wanted to start a war with iraq because of the brutal treatment saddam gave to his citizens, he should have said that. instead, he told us that they have wmd, and that they have ties to bin laden. i would have been less appalled at the whole thing if he just told the truth about why he wanted to go in there.

WMD.... who knows if he had them or not... yes we haven't found any but that doesn't mean he couldn't have destroyed them...... again, the exact reason bush went in is debatable.... in the end, he did the right thing for the people of Iraq, and maybe for other countries and our ownselves in the future.....

**SPECIAL EDITION**

CurveBall - "It might be YOUR biggest game of the year but it really doesn't seem to be as big a deal for Dallas fans anymore."

the middle east is so unpredictable, it's impossible to know if by being involved we're making things better or worse for america down the road. many have argued both sides for a long time, not specifically about iraq, but about america being involved in world 'policing' in general. i'll admit, when countries or 'groups' attack our country or our overseas forces, i'm compelled to just say 'f&ck you' and go back to minding our own business. i realize, as you point out, that this attitude may not always be the most noble.

as for the coward comment, the funny thing here is that we're basically talking about the same thing, although we seem to be looking at it from different points of view. it all comes down to a violation of rights. you argue that someone should step in and help the wife (the iraqi people in this case) from having her rights violated by the husband. while i would agree (moreso, i usually get rather pissed off when rights such as the right not be beaten are violated), there's also a gray area. what if the husband just yells at her and threatens to beat her? what if he just tells her that her tuna casserole sucks? at what point do you step in? same thing for countries. at what point does a leader lose his rights to lead his/her country in our eyes, and become an evil dictator? now, i'm not saying that saddam didn't cross that line, he was miles beyond that line. i guess i just wonder how we came to have the responsibility to be one of two countries that felt obligated to remove him. did someone annoint us with that task, or was it self-imposed?

okay, now i'm just rambling, sorry. this is such a hot topic, and i hope that we on this board can continue to 'argue' in a civilized manner, and, worst case scenario, agree to disagree (as we seem to be doing here). for what it's worth, i sincerely hope you're right and i'm wrong, that in the end, the moves made in iraq and the middle east will result in peace rather than more death.

I'm a jack of all trades, the master of three
Rockin' the tables, rockin' the mikes, rockin' the young lay-dees.

instead of arguing, i like to call it "debating" and debating is healthy,good,only makes you more knowledgeable, and makes you more open minded... which is what alot of people in this country could use

I definetly agree that it was self-imposed... we have this whole thing about trying to know everything about other countries, and to many that seems arogant... but to us it's nessesary because were the ones with the targets on our back and thats mainly do to us being the richest country in the world.....

We definetly need to not cross that line and I think with alot of countries we do a good job of voicing our opinion and then stepping back and letting countries solve there own problems.... but we tried to end this thing with saddam over 10 years ago in the first war.... and we didn't do a good job of it.... and his ways continued, hopefully this war was to correct our past mistakes...

**SPECIAL EDITION**

CurveBall - "It might be YOUR biggest game of the year but it really doesn't seem to be as big a deal for Dallas fans anymore."

Ok I didn't step in because I didn'te" want to "debate" But I will step in and say that number one I agree with BTP. Number 2, I am so sick of people in this country disrespecting our President. He didn't make this up to please his father. He didn't do thi for oil. I remember being scared to pieces after Sept 11th. I remember not being able to sleep. I had the news radio station on 24/7 and trust me that is not an exaderation. I remember being scared to death as a plane crossed over route 28, a little lower then I thought it should. The man that did this to our country and our people was not Saddam but he was built from the same mold. Given the opportunity he'd surely strike the same way if not worse. If President Bush (notice his correct tittle, I get sick of the media calling him Mr. Bush), decided this is what our country needed to do to protect us for another attack such as this, then I support him.
There is only one more point that I'd like to make here, if Saddam managed to live in a little hole in the ground with all that cash, don't you think he was possible of getting rid of the WMD? I am sure they existed, I am just as sure this tyrant knew to get them out of dodge before we got near enough to find them. This is just my opinion. And mind you I spend all day with a 2 year old, so I may not speak quite as educated as some of you, but my vote counts just as much as yours does.

Whenever I start to get blue, I just breathe!

My favortie line from the Simpsons:

Flanders: "Looks like someone is having a pre-rapture party!"

Homer: "No Flanders, it's a meeting of gay witches for abortion , you wouldn't be interested!"

One point I want to make is...Americans didn't start talking about terroists until after 9/11. Again from my veiw it started years ago! Beruit, Kobar Towers, Kenya Bombing, USS Cole. All were done overseas and not on our soil. WTC was attacked 10 year before 9/11 and that should've woke us up. It took 9/11 to wake us up and even now I feel were're more concerned with laying blame rather then preventing the next one. My point is this is not a Rep/Dem problem this is America's problem.

"Sean Taylor is hands down the best athlete I've ever coached it's not even close" Gregg Williams 2005 Mini-Camp

I agree with you DEHog I feel like the American people on a whole are forgeting it slowly. It bugs me to no end when I see travelers on the news complaining about their wait at the airport or extra security measures being taken. I heard somewhere that if the sceening requirements of the 80's when the whole hijacking thing was taken at least a little more seriously were followed a few of those 9/11 hijackers wouldn't have been allowed to board.
I am one that is all for infringing my privacy if it would have saved 5000 lives I'd easily and happily give it up.

Whenever I start to get blue, I just breathe!

My favortie line from the Simpsons:

Flanders: "Looks like someone is having a pre-rapture party!"

Homer: "No Flanders, it's a meeting of gay witches for abortion , you wouldn't be interested!"